Ex Parte Cleary et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13247182 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/247, 182 09/28/2011
22928 7590 09/22/2016
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas M. Cleary
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SPll-138 9208
EXAMINER
PLESZCZYNSKA, JOANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS M. CLEARY AND MICHAEL JOHN MOORE 1
Appeal2015-004178
Application 13/247,182
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of sole independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Van Laethem (U.S. Patent No. 3,801,423 issued April 2,
1974) and dependent claims 2-17 over this reference alone or in
combination with additional prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Coming Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004178
Application 13/247,182
Appellants claim a shaped glass laminate comprising an external
chemically-strengthened glass sheet and an internal non-chemically-
strengthened glass sheet with a polymer interlayer there between (claim 1 ).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A shaped glass laminate comprising an external glass sheet
formed at a convex surface of the laminate, an internal glass sheet
formed at a concave surface of the laminate, and a polymer interlayer
formed between the external glass sheet and the internal glass sheet,
wherein
the external glass sheet comprises a chemically-strengthened
glass sheet having a thickness of less than or equal to 1 mm, and the
external glass sheet has a first externally facing surface and a second
surface facing the internal glass sheet;
the polymer interlayer has a thickness of less than or equal to
1.6mm;
the internal glass sheet comprises a non-chemically-
strengthened glass sheet having a thickness of less than or equal to 2.5
mm, and the internal glass sheet has a first internally facing surface
and a second surface facing the external glass sheet,
wherein the external glass sheet has a compressive stress on the
second surface facing the internal glass sheet, and
wherein when a predetermined impact occurs against the first
internally facing surface of the internal glass sheet, the second surface
of the internal glass sheet and the second surface of the external glass
sheet are placed in tension thereby fracturing both the external and
internal glass sheet.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons given in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
The Examiner finds that Van Laethem discloses a shaped glass
laminate comprising an external chemically-strengthened glass sheet, a
2
Appeal2015-004178
Application 13/247,182
polymer interlayer, and an internal non-chemically-strengthened glass sheet
(Final Action 2-3).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding by arguing that Van
Laethem teaches both the first external and second internal glass sheets are
chemically tempered/strengthened and that Van Laethem's rectifying
treatments (i.e., non-chemically-strengthened treatments) "are conducted
after chemically strengthening of the second sheet and before assembly of
the laminate structure" (App. Br. 13 (citing Van Laethem 6:52-7:14)).
Appellants' argument lacks convincing merit. While the second
internal glass sheet of Van Laethem may be chemically-strengthened (see,
e.g., col. 8, 11. 7-19), the second sheet alternatively may be subjected to non-
chemically-strengthening treatments such as a rectifying (e.g., heating)
treatment (col. 6, 1. 62---col. 7, 1. 28) and an elastic flexure treatment (i.e.
wherein the second sheet is held in an elastically flexed condition) (col. 8, 11.
29-39). The fact that Van Laethem does not require the second glass sheet
to be chemically-strengthened is clearly evidenced by Van Laethem's
teaching that "[a]ny two ... of the above-described methods of increasing
the resistance of the second sheet to breakage by flexure which subjects its
inner face to tensile stress, viz: a rectifying treatment, a chemical tempering
treatment, and elastic flexure, can be applied to one and the same second
sheet" (id. at 11. 55---60).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants present a new argument which could
have been, but was not, presented in the Appeal Brief. Concerning the
limitation recited in the last clause of claim 1 that requires fracturing of both
the external and internal glass sheets, Appellants argue that the Examiner
misconstrues the limitation and misreads Van Laethem (Reply Br. i-f bridging
3--4). This new argument will not be considered for purposes of the present
3
Appeal2015-004178
Application 13/247,182
appeal because Appellants have not even asserted much less shown good
cause for their belated presentation of the argument. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)
(2014).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
4